Where do you draw the line between "Well, it's not perfect but it's the best system we have" and "Too far, let's fucking riot"?

A clear line for me would be religious persecution by the government. Eugenics and genocide are others. Pretty much any point at which the government tells me and others what to believe, whether or not I/they can reproduce, ect. It's a little radical in my opinion that the government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot smoke, but not alone something I'd put up a fight for.

When the ability to change that government by non-violent means is gone. 10 years ago, few people would have thought that same-sex marriages would be legal anywhere, much less becoming more common. While the current administration hasn't moved as fast as some would like on any given issue, it has made changes that I see as improvements. If there was a junta I would be in the resistance, also if laws removing my legal standing were enacted, as in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

There isn't one point where you go from nothing to risking your life.There are many things you'll start doing before actual "fighting": political activism, civil disobedience, sabotage, even terrorism...

Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.

Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

PAstrychef wrote:When the ability to change that government by non-violent means is gone.

I think this is at the crux of the issue. Most of us live in societies where the will of the people can influence the direction of government policies through participation within political processes, including protests, marches and other forms of demonstrations. Perhaps the last legal discrimination that still stands in many countries is gender discrimination regarding state sanctioned unions (marriage). Violently resisting this largely seems unnecessary as the wheels to change are turning, things are changing and certainly non-violent means to pursue this have not yet been exhausted and certainly in Australia the majority of the population seems to support the notion.

However, if necessary, it would be something I would be prepared to, well, perhaps not quite get violent about, but would consider severe civil disobedience.

Now if anyone made moves to try and take self-determination away from me, I could get very violent about that.

Once the government starts doing something I consider to be REALLY bad (imprisoning people that dislike the way the government does stuff, bringing in the military to shut down peaceful protests, etc), and makes it impossible to correct the problem by peaceful means (usually both would happen at the same time probably). At that point, I think it would be acceptable to fight over it.

I don't think I ever would. I'm not even a pacifist, and I do think there's a time and place for armed resistance, and I'd support people doing it. But A) I'm not at all brave. B) I think I could help more in political ways. Perhaps I could try to change the government from the inside, or act as a voice for the resistance (though this might be dangerous!) or try to bring attention to the problems from people outside the country. Mostly, C) I'm not very brave.

As an aside, I thought the video was a bit off-base. Students at Yeshiva University are not thinking about when they'd fight for their liberty because they are so far from having to do it.

I agree with what omgryebread said about the students the video discussed. They don't think like that simply because there is absolutely no reason for them to take the rather extreme step towards armed resistance or rioting. They have a working democracy and extreme representation through media and representatives that they can channel their frustration through before even considering rioting. This thread comes with good timing however, now after the great rebellions we've seen in what is now known as the Arab Spring. There we've seen armed and unarmed resistance in Libya and Egypt respectively, both countries are good examples of large parts of a nation pushed too far.

Personally I would consider armed resistance or rioting, fighting for my liberty, only if my government removed all means of influencing policy through voting. I would also, with a certainty and passion take up arms against an invading, occupational enemy force should war ever come back to Europe and my country. Now, this is something I highly doubt will ever happen, but of course I can't assume it will never happen either.

Reader wrote:Personally I would consider armed resistance or rioting, fighting for my liberty, only if my government removed all means of influencing policy through voting.

That would be my tipping point. I don't really care (in the deep down sense of the word*) what my government's policies are as long as they are democratically chosen. But the moment that government says "We're calling off the election this year" I'm taking my guns to parliament.

*I don't care if the government sells half our country to China, or destroys our natural environment through mining, or forces everyone to buy health insurance and scrap the free(ish) healthcare we have now. I can see why all these things are bad things to do, but compared to some countries, they are mild policies. If the majority of people want to go along with this, I'm happy to do so too.

That would be my tipping point. I don't really care (in the deep down sense of the word*) what my government's policies are as long as they are democratically chosen. But the moment that government says "We're calling off the election this year" I'm taking my guns to parliament.

Thing is, countries don't call off elections anymore. In the whole world, there are only a few countries don't call themselves democracies and don't have elections. Obviously, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea holds regular elections .

So the difference is more subtle. Who decides on the candidates? How much organizational and financial support do they get, how are they treated by the media? When the elected people maker decisions, how much choice do they have, have much information to decide on, how is already predetermined? How much power lies with non-democratically chosen people, like businessmen, or generals, or high bureaucrats, or judges? How much power is enacted behind the scenes, by people pulling strings in parties, or simply by bribes, or through old-boys networks?

Even in functoning democracies, there are lots of nondemocratic elements. It's unavoidable, partially out of necessesity and partially just imperfections in even the best systems. There's really no sharp line where democracy suddenly ends.

My first choice would be flight. As long as there was somewhere to run (Europe, Canada), I'd take that opportunity before consciously putting my physical safety on the line. If, however, the forces of darkness had already overwhelmed the globe, I'd have to assess the likelihood that resistance would be successful, and act (or, more likely, not act) accordingly.

The big loophole, I think, is that the question asks about my own liberty as opposed to the liberty of those close to me. I would surely be quicker to come to the defense of my wife than myself, in the event that her freedoms were disproportionately curtailed. Though in this case too, flight would be my preferred solution. I have but one life to give, so I am loathe to do so.

It would require me to believe that violence was the only option. As cynical as I am, I think that through a combination of the government and private sector, we can make life on earth a much better place. If we go for revolution, it will make life worse.

My pains and worries dissolved like melting snow, like a dying glow.I will become a part of wholeness, in all it's glorious gray, in its simple ways.I embrace the "we", the only true and refined unit of mankind, we forsake the "I".

Reader wrote:Personally I would consider armed resistance or rioting, fighting for my liberty, only if my government removed all means of influencing policy through voting.

That would be my tipping point. I don't really care (in the deep down sense of the word*) what my government's policies are as long as they are democratically chosen. But the moment that government says "We're calling off the election this year" I'm taking my guns to parliament.

This is a somewhat misleading criterion, though, because how much voters can influence policy is a question of degree. Even if you've still got elections, the system could still be such that you're screwed over no matter who you vote for. (There is an increasing opinion, what with the 'occupy' protests, that this sort of thing has already happened in America: that you have to vote for the "lesser of two evils".) And, of course, this is taken to the absurd extreme in nations where you "vote" for a dictator, or you vote for Party representatives.

This is all done without calling off any elections. So just how much is enough?

Government are to be blamed for whatever citizens are passing through. That is why they always call a spade a spade for us and let us know where we belong rather than telling people that black has become white. Thank you for your info.

Zamfir wrote:Thing is, countries don't call off elections anymore. In the whole world, there are only a few countries don't call themselves democracies and don't have elections. Obviously, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea holds regular elections .

So the difference is more subtle. Who decides on the candidates? How much organizational and financial support do they get, how are they treated by the media? When the elected people maker decisions, how much choice do they have, have much information to decide on, how is already predetermined? How much power lies with non-democratically chosen people, like businessmen, or generals, or high bureaucrats, or judges? How much power is enacted behind the scenes, by people pulling strings in parties, or simply by bribes, or through old-boys networks?

Even in functoning democracies, there are lots of nondemocratic elements. It's unavoidable, partially out of necessesity and partially just imperfections in even the best systems. There's really no sharp line where democracy suddenly ends.

Very good points, I'm going to change my views. If they took my land, or my right to own land, from me, I would fight for it. I figure that all of my most basic needs come from the land, and if they take I from me, I am not guaranteed survival. I'm willing to play the social contract game, working and taxes and whatnot, but only if I have a fallback.

Also, it is election day tomorrow in New Zealand, and if National and Act form a coalition government with more than a 65% majority, I'm going feral, which means either taking a gun and running into the bush, or moving to Australia.

CorruptUser wrote:When the freedom of press/speech is revoked. Until that point, the country has not decayed into tyranny.

The press is already not allowed to say certain things, and neither are you. You can face a lawsuit for saying a great many things (which does mean there's a law on the books that you're breaking), or worse, end up in prison. And if that wasn't enough, look at all the political + financial attacks wikileaks was forced to take for doing something which was (at the time, at least) perfectly legal. What on earth do you mean, then, by the "freedom of press/speech", if not this?

You mean the press can't, for example, declare that your restaurant failed a health inspection without supporting evidence? That's not exactly a revocation of the freedom of the press.

Revocation of the freedom of the press is when it becomes illegal for the press to investigate or report on any shady backdoor deals a judge does. Revocation is when people are kidnapped in the middle of the night and you have no way of knowing who is missing. Revocation is when people never find out about a Senator's 'tickle parties'.

Hearing about all of our politicians' and other powerful peoples' misconduct is the ultimate proof that the press is able to do its job.

CorruptUser wrote:You mean the press can't, for example, declare that your restaurant failed a health inspection without supporting evidence? That's not exactly a revocation of the freedom of the press.

Not exactly, but you're already put in the institutions for revocation once you've decided government has the right to decide what can and can't be said.

CorruptUser wrote:Revocation of the freedom of the press is when it becomes illegal for the press to investigate or report on any shady backdoor deals a judge does. Revocation is when people are kidnapped in the middle of the night and you have no way of knowing who is missing. Revocation is when people never find out about a Senator's 'tickle parties'.

Hearing about all of our politicians' and other powerful peoples' misconduct is the ultimate proof that the press is able to do its job.

If we don't have freedom of the press, how are you able to link to those things in the first place?. Government will always try to restrict some kind of freedom in order to gain more power; that's just the nature of people in power. It's the job of the free press to point out these issues, and the duty of the public to vote out the politicians that have become corrupt.

Of course, this leads to the question of "how do you know if there is censorship if news of the censorship is censored?" Well, there's not an easy answer for that.

An awful lot of revolutions end up installing a government that is ideologically satisfactory, but lacks either the necessary restraints to prevent a rapid devolution into a worse tyranny than before, or is too weak to withstand a potential tyrant.Some examples:

The French Revolution took France from the control of a fairly powerful monarchy and aristocracy, and replaced it with the Committee of Public Safety. The people then threw down the Committee, and replaced it with the Directory, which tied itself in knots for five years, until Napolean took over as absolute dictator.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution[/cite]

The Iranian Revolution took Iran from a thoroughly autocratic, but generally permissive, regime was replaced by the current Islamic Republic, with one of the worst records for personal freedom on the planet.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution[/cite]

The Russian Revolution took Russia from an absolute dictatorship under the Tsar to a weak republic, which was then replaced by the oppressive Soviet Union in the October Revolution and Russian Civil War[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution[/cite]

The Chinese Civil war took China from a federalist, significantly democratic regime to a much stronger and more oppresive regime under the People's Republic of China.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War[/cite]

Each of these original governments I listed were far from perfect. Indeed, many of them meet the requirements people have listed here for revolution. The revolutionaries didn't want the result they got; but they didn't understand the dynamics of the situation, and so misjudged the government they would end up with after the revolution.

I know there are many revolutions that actually succeed: revolutions where great strides are made towards the ideals espoused by its founders. Hey, I even live in a country that is the result of just such a revolution (the USA). But it would take a lot of hubris for me to think that I can predict the outcome of any struggle I set my hand to.

I'm not saying I would never engage in violent revolution. I would just have to be sure that I would rather die than live under the current government. To borrow from one of my countrymen, I would have to espouse "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

CorruptUser wrote:If we don't have freedom of the press, how are you able to link to those things in the first place?.

First of all, many of my examples are laws against freedom of speech/press. The laws themselves are not classified; hence you should expect them to be able to be linked to.

Secondly, I highly doubt anything would convince you if you decide to take the mere presence of evidence against freedom as sufficient evidence for freedom. This position, however, is absurd in that it only guarantees "lip-service" freedom: if Chinese newspapers were allowed to complain about censorship, but not allowed to actually print anything being censored, would that be evidence of any real freedom? The exact same thing is happening here (though admittedly the number of things being censored are fewer).

CorruptUser wrote:Government will always try to restrict some kind of freedom in order to gain more power; that's just the nature of people in power.

The only problem is, when you say "try", you really mean "have already succeeded" for most of my examples (that is, everything except the incoming bills). The DMCA is not going anywhere; neither are most of these laws and rulings. Thus, I can only ask if your criterion for resistance needs revising.

Come back when the news is no longer allowed to openly criticize the government, or opposition investigators are murdered with no real investigation (Anna Politkovskaya), because so far your arguments are of the tin-foil hat variety.

CorruptUser wrote:Come back when the news is no longer allowed to openly criticize the government, or opposition investigators are murdered with no real investigation (Anna Politkovskaya), because so far your arguments are of the tin-foil hat variety.

Princeton professors being sued for cryptographic research is of the tin-foil hat variety? WTF?

Hard to say. I'm not up on my political history, so I don't know of any solid pattern democracies take when sliding into dangerous authoritarianism (or if there have been enough cases to even set up any clear pattern).

I'd probably use my judgment of the moment. Of course, if they passed a law I considered absurd and unjust then I'd ignore it. And then I'd use all available force if and when they came to imprison me. But that's more of a reactive fight for personal freedom. It's not like a planned struggle for liberty in the larger sense. So I don't think it counts for much.

In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

Lapop?"Secondly, I highly doubt anything would convince you if you decide to take the mere presence of evidence against freedom as sufficient evidence for freedom. This position, however, is absurd in that it only guarantees "lip-service" freedom: if Chinese newspapers were allowed to complain about censorship, but not allowed to actually print anything being censored, would that be evidence of any real freedom? The exact same thing is happening here (though admittedly the number of things being censored are fewer)."

Fewer? Fewer than what? Fewer?That is less than half a comparison. I think that it is funny. *Nerd Joke.*

What is that number few? (X) How do you know you have fewer? Censorship is a huge subject.

There are so many ways to censor. Is the race to the bottom? There is no bottom!

How do you know when the information that you are exposed to is not true? How do you know when the information that you are being exposed to matters?

Spoiler:

“i made myself a snowballAs perfect as can be.I thought I'd keep it as a pet,And let it sleep with me.I made it some pajamasAnd a pillow for it's head.Then last night it ran away,But first - It wet the bed.”― Shel Silverstein

I have been in a Shel Silverstein mood all day. From what I understand it sucked to be Black in the South way back in the day. A good scientist maintains a child like wonder when the snow ball wets the bed. A good scientist is practical. No more snow balls in the bed. No more snowballs in the bed is information that matters.

The people do not have rights that they can not enforce. The Government was to have balances to enforce the rights of the individual. That does not seem to be working properly. Oh, Yeah. The Patriot Act. Right.

I owe it to Peg Morton. Peg Morton a seventy something year old Quaker woman that was imprisoned for reading that stuff and saying, "Oh No You Don't! Not In My Name!"Peg Morton. She is out of jail now. The last time I spoke with her she was very sad indeed.

I can't seem to get the clip to play. But, that is her. Oh Dear God. Who knows what she might be blabbering on about. The torture thing really upset her. Quakers. They are like that. They are all quiet and humble; Yet; When a Quaker thinks it has something to say. Well;They think that they can talk to Anybody. Even God. Funny bunch; The Quakers.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

If China-style arrests ever start taking place, if they want to arrest someone in my family for political reasons they will have a firefight on their hands. This would require not only the police doing those things but no court system to follow it up on. Also when they attempt to ban personal gun ownership and actually seize guns. Personal gun ownership is essentially the only thing that prevents a government from having the ability to commit heinous crimes against its citizens. Think about it, if every German-Jew owned a gun how many would have been gassed?

I don't see the US in such a state right now, but if the economy takes a downturn it could only be a few years away.

c_programmer wrote:Personal gun ownership is essentially the only thing that prevents a government from having the ability to commit heinous crimes against its citizens. Think about it, if every German-Jew owned a gun how many would have been gassed?

Poor example IMO. If every German-Jew in WWII Germany owned a gun more of them would have been gunned down in their homes/streets, and there would have been an incrementally higher casualty rate among the German soldiers, but they'd still all get taken. Firearm ownership as a counter to government's monopoly on force might have worked back in colonial times, when military technology was so much more primitive, but it would never fly now. It just leads to more Waco and Ruby Ridge scenarios.

If you want to give citizens a real stand-off capability versus the government, you'll need to arm them all with explosives, LAWs and SAMs, and large-calibre weaponry with armor-piercing capabilities. Of course that has it's own drawbacks, since one out of every 10,000 people (random number pulled completely out of my ass) out there is going to be one off his nut enough to just want to fuck things up for everybody and take down an airliner or level a city block with his 'right to a fuel-air explosive device'.

Choboman wrote:If every German-Jew in WWII Germany owned a gun more of them would have been gunned down in their homes/streets, and there would have been an incrementally higher casualty rate among the German soldiers, but they'd still all get taken.

I think it's risky business stating a hypothetical as fact. It's just as possible that knowing the Jewish population of Germany was armed and dangerous, that 'ze Germans would have focused on another ethnic group, one with a lesser predilection towards shooting back. It's also possible that Germany would have pointed to the German Jews armament as proof that they were plotting. You simply have no way of knowing.

What is known, is that one of the earliest actions against marginalized and oppressed populations throughout history has been disarming them. So I ask you point blank, if you were a Jew in Nazi Era Germany, and a pogrom was roaring through your shetle, would you rather be Joe the Hatter, or Joe the dude with a gun?

How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.

c_programmer wrote:Personal gun ownership is essentially the only thing that prevents a government from having the ability to commit heinous crimes against its citizens. Think about it, if every German-Jew owned a gun how many would have been gassed?

Poor example IMO. If every German-Jew in WWII Germany owned a gun more of them would have been gunned down in their homes/streets, and there would have been an incrementally higher casualty rate among the German soldiers, but they'd still all get taken.

I disagree. It would have been too hard to take them all from their homes and Germany would probably have gone after another group. The problem with them having to fight every house and lose at least one German per captured Jew is that, morale is all but impossible to break when you have men standing in front of their families but very easy to break when attacking. Germany already had a lot of problems with their officers, this might have been a tipping point. We're dealing in pure hypotheticals though from a ~70 year old war though.

Choboman wrote:Firearm ownership as a counter to government's monopoly on force might have worked back in colonial times, when military technology was so much more primitive, but it would never fly now. It just leads to more Waco and Ruby Ridge scenarios.

In terms of an all out civil war that is true, but not for going house to house. I wouldn't need armor piercing rounds either, I own a civilian AK which at close range will go straight though military grade personnel armor.

My point is that going from house to house to take people goes form being easy task to an extremely costly and morale breaking one when everyone you are trying to take has a gun.

You only get massacre scenarios when all the people you want to kill are isolated. Considering how integrated the Jews were in German society, it would have been impossible to massacre them without killing an inordinately large number of non-Jew civilians.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:

Tyndmyr wrote:

Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Not sure, there are different ways to fight, and which method would depend on circumstance. I would fight in some manner, political or whatnot if any of my primary objectives are threatened. I would probably only use a gun if my life was immediately threatened, because if it came down to a shooting war I think I'd be better suited to weapon design, construction, logistics, and strategy. I'm a RTS player, not a FPS player.

Depends on the meaning of "fight". If it's the kind of fighting that could put me in actual danger, I'd have to already be in some kind of physical danger. And even then - is it a good idea to attack a cop who's just unjustly pepper sprayed you? I'd probably prefer to flee the country if things got so bad that I'd have to do actual fighting.

If "fight" means writing a letter to inform Disney that you're boycotting them for their support of SOPA, then I'm fighting for my liberty right now. :p

An awful lot of revolutions end up installing a government that is ideologically satisfactory, but lacks either the necessary restraints to prevent a rapid devolution into a worse tyranny than before, or is too weak to withstand a potential tyrant.Some examples:

The French Revolution took France from the control of a fairly powerful monarchy and aristocracy, and replaced it with the Committee of Public Safety. The people then threw down the Committee, and replaced it with the Directory, which tied itself in knots for five years, until Napolean took over as absolute dictator.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution[/cite]

The Iranian Revolution took Iran from a thoroughly autocratic, but generally permissive, regime was replaced by the current Islamic Republic, with one of the worst records for personal freedom on the planet.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution[/cite]

The Russian Revolution took Russia from an absolute dictatorship under the Tsar to a weak republic, which was then replaced by the oppressive Soviet Union in the October Revolution and Russian Civil War[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution[/cite]

The Chinese Civil war took China from a federalist, significantly democratic regime to a much stronger and more oppresive regime under the People's Republic of China.[cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War[/cite]

Each of these original governments I listed were far from perfect. Indeed, many of them meet the requirements people have listed here for revolution. The revolutionaries didn't want the result they got; but they didn't understand the dynamics of the situation, and so misjudged the government they would end up with after the revolution.

I know there are many revolutions that actually succeed: revolutions where great strides are made towards the ideals espoused by its founders. Hey, I even live in a country that is the result of just such a revolution (the USA). But it would take a lot of hubris for me to think that I can predict the outcome of any struggle I set my hand to.

I'm not saying I would never engage in violent revolution. I would just have to be sure that I would rather die than live under the current government. To borrow from one of my countrymen, I would have to espouse "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

You know, I think Byrel took Thesh's good point, and made such an eye-opening he-who-fails-to-remember-history point, that the only way this thread could possibly survive was to completely ignore it. But that's.... OK.

Sorry for the thread resurection but you missed this one. A red dawn scenario, the french did that in WW2. And the german government kept the massacres from the people for the longest time, an in the open genocide would have triggered a revolution.

Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.